Friday, September 26, 2014

To defeat IS we should do more than just bomb its strongholds in the Middle East; we should no longer turn a blind eye to the violent nature of Islam. We should demand that those who settle in our countries cast aside values incompatible with ours. There is a huge problem -- also in our countries - cause by the violent exhortations of Islam. Only when we face this truth will we be able to win this war we are in.

Although the majority of Muslims are moderate, thousands of innocent civilians all over the West have fallen victim to terrorists inspired by Islam. IS has announced that every citizen of the West is a target.

70% of Dutch Muslims consider the religious rules of Islam more important than the secular laws of the country where they are living. Survey, December 2013, by Prof. Ruud Koopmans, Humbolt University, Berlin

A military alliance, led by the United States, is currently bombing the forces of the Islamic State [IS] in Iraq and Syria. Many European nations, such as the United Kingdom, France, the Netherlands and others, are participating in this offensive. IS, however, is not just a threat to the Middle East, but also to our own countries. The presence in IS's ranks of hundreds of Muslims born in the West, carrying Western passports, is a huge domestic security risk. Whether we like it or not, war has also come to our streets.

And whether we like it or not, Islam has everything to do with it. "No religion condones the killing of innocents," President Obama recently said. David Cameron added about the IS terrorists: "They claim to do this in the name of Islam, that is nonsense, Islam is a religion of peace. They are not Muslims, they are monsters."

The sad thing is that, while they are, indeed, monsters, they are also Muslims. No matter what Obama and Cameron say, IS and other terrorist groups draw inspiration from Koranic verses, such as sura 47:4: "When ye meet the unbelievers, smite at their necks and when ye have caused a bloodbath among them bind a bond firmly on them."

Although the majority of Muslims are moderate, thousands of innocent civilians all over the West have fallen victim to terrorists inspired by Islam. On 9/11, 2001, Mohamed Atta and his accomplices flew planes into New York's twin towers. In March 2004, Jamal Zougam, a Moroccan-born Spanish citizen, and his friends bombed four commuter trains in Madrid. In November 2004, Mohammed Bouyeri, a Dutchman of Moroccan origin, slit the throat of Islam critic Theo van Gogh in Amsterdam. In July 2005, Hasib Hussain and three other homegrown British suicide killers assassinated 52 civilians on the London public transport system. In March 2012, Mohammed Merah, a Frenchman of Algerian descent, mowed down a rabbi and three children in front of a school in Toulouse. In April 2013, the Chechen brothers Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, killed three onlookers at the Boston marathon with pressure cooker bombs. In May 2013, Michael Adebolayo, a British citizen of Nigerian descent, decapitated soldier Lee Rigby in the streets of London. Last May, Mehdi Nemmouche, a French citizen of Algerian origin, murdered four people at the Jewish Museum in Brussels.

Atta, Zougam, Bouyeri, Hussain, Merah, Tsarnaev, Adebolayo, Nemmouche, they were all Muslims, most of them carrying Western passports. It is dangerous to deny a reality because it is discomforting. Bombing IS in Syria and Iraq, while refusing to see the problems at home, will have disastrous consequences.

There is much discussion about the support among Muslim populations in the West for IS and similar organizations waging jihad and aiming to impose Islamic Sharia law on our societies. A survey conducted by ICM Research last July found that 16% of all inhabitants of France and 7% of the inhabitants of the United Kingdom have a favorable view of IS. In May 2013, a survey by Ahmed Ait Moha of Motivaction, an Amsterdam research institute, found that 73% of Dutch Muslims regard Dutch Muslims who fight in Syria as heroes, compared to only 3% of indigenous Dutch. Last December, a survey by Prof. Ruud Koopmans at Humboldt University in Berlin revealed that over 45% of German Muslims and 70% of Dutch Muslims consider the religious rules of Islam to be more important than the secular laws of the country where they are living.

Every day, I can feel the cold shadow of Islam. Next November, it will be exactly ten years that I have been living under permanent police protection. Wherever I go, armed policemen go with me to protect me against Islamic groups who have vowed to assassinate me because they disagree with my opinion that Islam is not a religion of peace. Today, ten years later, IS has announced that every citizen of the West is a target.

To defeat IS we should do more than just bomb its strongholds in the Middle East; we should no longer turn a blind eye to the violent nature of Islam. We should demand that those who settle in our countries cast aside values incompatible with ours.

Last week, I proposed in the Dutch Parliament that we ask an oath of all people from Islamic countries who wish to be members of our society. In the oath they have to explicitly distance themselves from Sharia law and the violent verses in the Koran. Those who do not want to take the oath are no longer welcome. They should leave our country at once. This measure forces us to see the reality which Obama, Cameron and other Western leaders refuse to see: there is a huge problem – also in our countries – caused by the violent exhortations of Islam.

Only when we face this truth, we will be able to win the war we are in.

Monday, September 22, 2014

Shortly after the September 11, 2001, attacks on the US, President George W. Bush established a protocol still observed by politicians worldwide more than 13 years later.

According to the Bush protocol, any mention of Islamic terrorism must be followed by a disclaimer pointing out that Islamic terrorism is nothing to do with Islam.

“Islam is peace,” Bush said six days after the 9/11 attacks, which slaughtered nearly 3000 people.

“These terrorists don’t represent peace.”

Bush returned to that theme during his second term: “I believe Islam is a great religion that preaches peace.”

Thus began a tradition followed all over the planet.

“There is not a problem with Islam. For those of us who have studied it, there is no doubt about its true and peaceful nature,” former British PM Tony Blair said.

Current British PM David Cameron said the same after British aid worker David Haines was beheaded by Islamic extremists: “Islam is a religion of peace. They are not Muslim, they are monsters.”

President Barack Obama is another follower of the Bush protocol: “ISIL is not Islamic. No religion condones the killing of innocents.”

Many in Australia, from Prime Minister Tony Abbott down, have lately joined in on the “religion of peace” mantra. Here’s Attorney-General George Brandis: “It is one of the world’s great religions. The suggestion that mainstream Islam is anything but a religion of peace is nonsense.”

Liberal Senator Concetta Fierravanti-Wells: “The terrorists are misusing the name of Islam and giving the community a bad name. I would implore the Australian public to understand this is not about Islam. It is about terrorists and a death cult.”

NSW Premier Mike Baird: “This is not about religion. This is about criminals intending to act criminally in association with terrorism organisations.”

Labor leader Bill Shorten: “This war is not about religion. This is about evil people in some other parts of the world twisting religion to their own violent and criminal ends.”

Queensland Premier Campbell Newman, following last week’s terror raids: “This is not about a particular group in the community. This is about a very small group of criminals who wish to undertake criminal acts against the community.”

Goulburn prison may be host to someone with political ambitions. After Saturday’s beardo uprising at the prison, a source spoke to The Daily Telegraph.

“Something had happened they weren’t happy about. The issue wasn’t a Muslim-related issue, but it was the Muslim guys who got into it, yelling out to Allah,” the source said.

They were “yelling out to Allah” but it “wasn’t a Muslim-related issue”.

To be fair, the source probably meant the issue that prompted the riot was not Muslim-related, but the phrasing nevertheless recalls last year’s bewildering media response to the murder of British soldier Lee Rigby.

‘We swear by almighty Allah’

Killer Mujahid Adeboloja, his hands covered in blood, stood in the street near Rigby’s almost-decapitated body and explained himself.

“We swear by almighty Allah we will never stop fighting you. You people will never be safe,” Islamic covert Adeboloja said.

“There are many, many ayah throughout the Koran that we must fight them as they fight us, an eye for an eye, a tooth for tooth.”

Sinclair: “Is there any indication of the background of the suspects involved?’

McIlrick: “No indication as yet, Hannah.”

The ABC’s London correspondent was equally perplexed: “What happened was clear, the motivation, less so.”

No wonder Muslim extremists are frustrated. They literally stand in the middle of the street telling everybody that they killed for Allah and nobody seems to hear them.

It’s just bad luck, I guess, that the religion of peace attracts so many people of violence. Could’ve happened to any religion, really, although it’s rare to hear of anyone flying jets into buildings to honour Krishna or screaming oaths to Ganesha while cutting someone’s head off.

Few dare to go against the whole religion of peace theme. One of the them, interestingly, is British Islamic extremist Anjem Choudary.

“You can’t say that Islam is a religion of peace,” he told interviewer Erick Stakelbeck in 2010.

“Because Islam does not mean peace. Islam means submission. So the Muslim is one who submits. There is a place for violence in Islam. There is a place for jihad in Islam.”

Thanks for the clarification, Anjem. By the way, this column is nothing to do with Islam.

Wednesday, September 17, 2014

So I’ve been thinking about this a lot and posted this morning on twitter about David Cameron’s comment (“they are monsters, not Muslims”). I’m very concerned by growing reprise that “Islamic State” (IS) is not Islam, that they are not Muslims. I can understand where it’s coming from but its a very dangerous form of political correctness. Clearly not all Muslims support IS, nor are all terrorists Muslim. But there is no doubt that IS say they are acting on behalf of Islam, they are Muslims and they want to establish an Islamic Caliphate.

If you detach their monstrous ideology from what we like to think of as Islam, then do you detach from the Muslim community responsibility for denouncing it? I have no problem if moderate Muslims — as some have done (albeit late in the day) — stand up and say that IS does not represent what they believe to be Islam. I similarly say that Naturei Karta, the “ultra-Orthodox” anti Zionist Jews — who by the way simply throw words, not stones, not swords and are nonviolent — do not represent Judaism in any form that I know. But I want the moderates to stand up and say it.

More importantly, do you, by saying IS is not Islam, they’re not Muslims, detach from the Muslim community at large the responsibility for helping prevent radicalisation which we know full well goes on in certain mosques and on campuses? (It is astonishing how many campuses world wide have HUGE investment from Saudi and Qatar and huge investment in BDS, anti Israel, and radicalisation programmes.)

I am not blaming any particular Muslim community but just as I hung my head in shame when extremist Jews murdered that poor young man in Jerusalem after the death of the three Jewish teenagers, so the Muslim community worldwide must say, not that IS is an Israeli / CIA conspiracy (as Iran currently claiming) but that something is rotten within the Muslim world and it must be stopped.

There are Middle East and other Muslim societies, particularly Iran, bringing up their children on a relentless feast of hate — against Jews, against the US, against the West. There has also been dreadful oppression of Sunnis by Shias in Iraq, of Shias by Sunnis in Iraq (depends which year and who’s in charge) and all over the ME, Iran and Pakistan etc. IS, a radical Sunni movement, has grown out of those struggles and has been strongly funded by Qatar (they would claim not but even if not directly, certainly indirectly and they directly fund Hamas, another murderous Sunni regime). But we must wonder why so many well educated EU-born men AND women are flocking to take part in the barbaric IS regime. It is a shame for the whole of British society that some of the absolutely worst offenders (“Jihadi John”, the women in charge of the sex slaves) are British Muslims who have turned their backs on their homes and gone to Iraq. Some might just be hot headed young people looking for an ideology. But some have been indoctrinated and that must stop, now.

We need interfaith discussions; we need to avoid the vile rhetoric that appeared everywhere, instantly, over the Israel Gaza conflict. The rhetoric which painted the problems in black and white, condeming Israel without contemplating the impact, the propaganda and the lies that Hamas were feeding the West and that were so willingly believed (and spread by the media which apparently Jews control — if we do, we do it very badly!). We need to open our eyes to how the hate is poisoning the youth of our land.

We have to consider the anti-Semitism (and sorry that’s what it is) that led to the huge disparity (disproportion to use an emotive term) in the speed, ferocity and extent of the response to the Israel Gaza conflict compared with, for instance, how many months it took anyone to notice and even quietly protest that Assad was slaughtering hundreds and hundreds of civilians (nearly 300,000 dead in three years in the conflict, many many civilians including thousands of children but none of the emotive hour by hour accounts we had over Gaza); that IS was truly ethnically cleansing Mosul of Christians, was waging a genocide (still is) against the Yazidis, was systematically raping women and children as a punishment (there has never been a single case of rape by an IDF soldier — not something to celebrate but notable in modern warfare).

Why were so few people raging over these mass slaughters and war crimes and yet out on the streets in minutes over Israel defending itself against 100s of rockets raining down aimed at civilians.

My take was that it was fuelled fundamentally by anti-Semitism (the singling out of a particular state etc) but also importantly there is no sanction for criticising Israel (and Jews). However, Muslims don’t/won’t criticise Muslims and others are afraid of doing so. I realise that’s a generalisation and some, such as the Quiliam Foundation are doing wonderful work in this area. But you only have to look at how slow the UN (with one member one vote, and just one Jewish state but 50+ Muslim states) has been to denounce Syria and even ISIS, yet has criticism of Israel as a standing agenda item.

Muslims who support democracy, who reject a Caliphate, who reject the barbarism of IS now need to speak up. In Britain and the EU and all Western liberal democracies, we cannot have increasing ghettoisation, we cannot have areas run by Sharia law where police turn a blind eye to abuse of women and children, and we have to say, this is Britain and the law is British. We have to have mutual respect for all faiths and people of all faiths have to abide by the laws of the land.

I have not set out to offend with this post and I am trying to read it as if everything I’ve said about Muslims mentioned Jews instead (a la the terrible piece by Matthew Parris in The Times a few weeks ago). But we do not solve the problem by pretending that fundamentalist Islam is not Islam and is not run by Muslims. As Edmund Burke so wisely said “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” I truly believe the Muslim communities in Britain (I can’t speak for the rest of the world) are now speaking out louder and more strongly — from my perspective they weren’t and there has been a reluctance to criticise bad Muslims in direct contrast to the willingness to denounce Israel at the drop of the hat.

At least with IS it is very clear, no one can blame Israel and in fact Israel is the front line for the West against IS. Thank God Israel is there. Not least, it’s proving a safe haven for UN troops running away from IS in Syria on the Golan border. We need to unite in our condemnation of Islamic terrorists whether ISIS, Hamas, Al quaeda or the Muslim Brotherhood – they all subvert democracy, fail to respect other faiths and are murderous in their methods; they may differ in the detail but not in the fundamental ideology. And that is what all of us, Jews, Muslims, Christians, Atheists need to speak out and act against else evil will triumph.If They’re Not Islamic Fanatics, What Are They, Martians?

The keynote speaker at the ACT for America conference on September 11, 2014 was Judge Jeanine Pirro. ACT for America is a non-profit organization led by Brigitte Gabriel, a leading terrorism expert.

Judge Pirro's speech centered on the threat of ISIS, mirroring the non-profit organization's goal of fighting Shariah Islamic Law in the United States and maintaining our freedoms and our Judeo-Christian foundation as intended by our Founding Fathers.

Echoed by many speakers during the three-day conference, Judge Pirro challenged the deliberate misrepresentation that ISIS, the Islamic terrorist army alleged to number 30,000 in Iraq and Syria, is not about Islamic fanaticism. "If they're not Islamic fanatics, what are they, Martians?" asked Pirro.

"The President says ISIS is not Islamic. Really? What is it, German? Have you read the Quran. Read the d-n thing and you'll figure it out."

Pirro criticized in her speech the administration's domestic policy in regard to Islam. "They've removed all references to Islam and jihad from the training manuals and label the shooter of Fort Hood as committing an act of workplace violence," even though the jihadi major talked to Anwar al-Awlaki, "a guy who was so dangerous that we had to kill him," and the major carried around business cards with the words, "Soldier of Allah."

She questioned this administration's true allegiance and intent as reflected by U.S. actions in Egypt.

"We take out Mubarak, who was actually an ally. We take out Gadhafi. We supported the Arab Spring, and it wasn't democratic. But, Morsi gets elected. Obama's first speech he gave in Cairo was about apologizing for who we are. We support Morsi because he was democratically elected. So was Hitler. They kick out Morsi and elect al-Sisi and the administration is still holding back. The administration is angry that the Muslim Brotherhood is out in Egypt. The Egyptians had the strength to throw out the Muslim Brotherhood! Shame on us because we don't have the strength to throw them out of the U.S."

Emphasizing that we need to be "morally right," not "politically correct," Judge Pirro said, "The people who started this country are turning over in their graves asking what in the world they did all of that for." She repeated her warnings that the jihadist killing Christians and other religious minorities in the Middle East "are coming for us," here on U.S. soil, and are probably already here, entering through the southern border sieve.

Judge Pirro discussed the Benghazi attack and its implications. "I think about Benghazi. I wonder if the people in our government really want to protect us." The four Americans who died two years ago "didn't choose to be victims of that attack. Then our President and Secretary of State blamed the Benghazi attack on a video. Are you kidding me?"

It was certainly moving to hear the heartbreaking testimony of Tyrone Woods' father. Tyrone chose to disobey orders and tried to save Ambassador's Stevens' life, paying with his own life in the process.

Judge Pirro explained how the administration "took Islam out of the talking points on Benghazi because we didn't want to offend Muslims," and how a video was purposefully blamed for the vicious attack even though, she reminded the audience, if a video was the culprit, which it was not, we still have freedom of speech in this country.

Why would officials deliberately misrepresent the reality that Islamists are out of control worldwide? "What do they gain by lying to us? They gain political office by lying to us," Judge Pirro emphatically stated. Spending taxpayer money to apologize to the man who made the video was a fantasy to cover up for the claim that "Libya was normalized."

She criticized the fact that this administration took two years to capture the mastermind of Benghazi. "They could not get him because he would say they were stupid for believing that a video caused it. The mastermind would say that we are stupid. It doesn't take a video to make them hate us!"

Referring to the CIA operative, identified as Bob, who ordered the stand down and delay to save our trapped men, Pirro asked, "Who's the stupid idiot that we have in our government that would order something like that?"

Judge Pirro ended her speech by warning Americans about the weakness of the electric grid, a grid vulnerable to terrorist physical and cyber-attacks. She reminded the audience about the attack on Silicon Valley a year ago when two individuals lifted heavy concrete slabs and cut the fiber optic cables underneath, and then shot transformers with AK47s. She told the audience that an "attack on the power lines left the entire nation of Yemen (23 million people) without power for a day."

According to Forbes, "shortly after the damage of the first attack was repaired, militants reappeared for a second round, which led to the national power outage. The military responded with an operation that killed two attackers while wounding another six."Muslim Scholar: Obama 'Wrong' About 'Not Islamic' Islamic State

President Obama's notion that the Islamic State is "not Islamic" and that "no religion condones killing" doesn't square with the army of Muslims that the terror group is attracting. The CIA figures as many as 31,500 Muslims have joined IS.

It's hard to believe there's more than 30,000 serial killers in the world, including at least 2,000 in the West, and they're all suddenly flocking together in search of victims. In the entire U.S., there are at most 50 active serial murderers by FBI estimates.

Clearly, something else is motivating all these Muslims, yet Obama insists it's not their faith.

"He is wrong," said Islamic scholar Dr. Muhammad Zareef.

"They are true Muslims fighting in the cause of Allah," he added in an interview. "The Quran makes it very clear that a good and faithful Muslim has every reason to kill non-Muslims. ISIS and other groups like them take these verses into their hearts."

The forbidden truth is, the Islam that IS practices is firmly rooted in Islamic scripture and sanctioned by Islam's most influential scholars, says Zareef, who studied Islamic law for eight years after growing up in a devout Muslim home in the Mideast. Now living in the U.S., he became a reformer after 9/11.

"One of the things that disturbed me most was the Quran made it very clear the only assurance of going to heaven is if a Muslim kills an infidel (unbeliever) in jihad or dies in jihad," he said, citing Surahs 2:190-193; 5:33-34; 8:39-41; 9:20; 9:29; 9:111; 9:123; 22:58-59; and 47:1-4, among other verses.

"Muslims are instructed to use warfare to defend and promote Islam," explained Zareef, author of "Allah's Plan for Muslims." "All unbelievers are regarded as being at war with Allah and his religion; therefore, they deserve to die. Muslims have permission to kill all who don't believe in Allah."

Jihadists, he says, are following the example of the Muslim prophet set forth in Al-Bukhari book 52 of the Hadith, a sacred text supplementing the Quran. They "are trying to honor Prophet Muhammad's speech and the Quran verses by killing non-Muslims," he said. "And if I, as an ordinary Muslim, say anything against such violence, they will treat me the same way as they do non-Muslims."

Monday, September 15, 2014

Until the leading Islamic scholars provide a peaceful theology that clearly contradicts the violent views of the IS, the existence of a “moderate Islam” must be questioned.

The guiding principle of the Islamic State (IS) is that Muslims must fight non-Muslims all over the world and offer them the following choices: Convert to Islam, pay a humiliating tax called “Jijya,” or be killed. This violent doctrine was the primary justification for the Islamic conquests by the early Muslims.

Following the latest in a long string of inhumane and barbaric attacks by the IS, who only offer these three options to non-Muslims, it becomes mandatory to ask whether this principle IS uses is Islamic or Un-Islamic.

In other words, can a young Muslim become more religious—and more obedient to Allah—without subscribing to this ancient brutality? Will he be able to find an approved Islamic theological source or interpretation that clearly contradicts this principle, or at least teaches it in a different way (i.e., contextualizing it in time and place)?

The sad answer is: No, he cannot.

Traditionally there are five sources for Islamic Law: the Koran, the Hadith of Prophet Mohamed (such as Sahih Al-Buchakry), the actions of the disciples of Mohamed (Sahaba), the four schools of Islamic jurisprudence, and the Tafseer (or Interpretations) of the Koran.

If a young Muslim were to do some research to examine whether what the IS is doing is in fact Islamic or Un-Islamic, he would find some shocking results.

The literal understanding of the Koran 9:29 can easily be used to justify what the IS is doing. “Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture (Jews and Christians) - [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humiliated."

But perhaps this young Muslim will decide to see if the Hadith of Al-Buchakry may explain it differently. The following Sahih (authentic) Hadith in Al-Buchakry also supports the violent IS ideology: Sahih al-Bukhari 6924—Muhammad said: “I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: ‘La ilaha illallah’ (none has the right to be worshipped but Allah), and whoever said ‘No God other than Allah’ will save his property and his life from me."

Feeling uncomfortable with the literal interpretations of such texts, the young Sunni Muslim might try to find an answer in the actions of the Sahaba. Sadly, the Sahaba (Disciples of Mohamed) were the ones who first used these principles to justify the Islamic conquests and the subjugation of non-Muslims to Islam.

The fourth source for Islamic law is the four schools of Islamic Jurisprudence, namely: Al-Shafeii, Al-Hanbali, Al-Hanafi, and Al- Maleki. These four schools, without a single exception, support the principle that Muslims must fight non-Muslims and offer them the following choices: Convert to Islam, pay a humiliating tax called “Jijya,” or be killed.

The fifth, and last hope for a young Muslim to hold a less horrific view of Koran 9:29 is to find a Tafseer (an interpretation or commentary) that interprets it differently.

A basic search of almost ALL approved interpretations for the Koran supports the same violent conclusion. The 25 leading approved Koran Interpretations (commentaries)—that are usually used by Muslims to understand the Koran --unambiguously support the violent understanding of the verse.

So where might a young moderate Muslim find a non-violent understanding for such a verse?

Saying that “Islam is the religion of Peace” or condemning the IS as being “un-Islamic” without condemning the principle that Muslims must fight non-Muslims to subjugate them to Islam is not just hypocritical but also counterproductive as it hides the true cause of the problem and impedes the efforts to solve it.

Similarly, not calling the IS the Islamic State (to avoid using the word Islamic)—as suggested by some Islamic scholars—is not going to change the painful fact that the IS is using an approved and unchallenged principle of the Islamic theology. Such scholars need to work on providing peaceful alternatives to the current violent theology instead of asking the world not to call the IS the Islamic State.

In brief, there are certainly many moderate “Muslims.” Until the leading Islamic scholars provide a peaceful theology that clearly contradicts the violent views of the IS, however, the existence of a “moderate Islam” must be questioned.

Important note: A modern and peaceful interpretation of Koran 9:29 is available at “Modern Interpretation of the Quran” [in Arabic] written by the author of this Op-Ed (Dr. T. HAMID).The book (which could currently be the only available peaceful interpretation for the verse) has not been approved yet by the leading Islamic institutes but has gained more than two Million (2M) followers (Likes) mostly from young Arabic speaking Muslims since it was created in May 2013.

Sunday, September 14, 2014

Islam is fundamentally a religion built on signs of uncontrolled sex addiction.

Muslims are complete and out of control sex addicts. All they talk about is sex. All they think about is sex. 6-year old virgins are a minority in the Muslim world. Their entire society and religion is built on sexual paranoia and pent-up sexual frustrations that is violently pursued, while being covered up, punished, attacked until they can live it out for eternity in Jannah (paradise).

They kill and blow themselves up over sex. They invade countries and murder innocent people over sex. They oppress half of their entire population over sex. Not a woman, child, goat, donkey or camel is safe from their perpetual sexual needs. No other societies in the entire world competes with the Muslim ones in the sheer volume of sexual deviancy; pedophilia, sodomy, rape, homosexuality, bestiality, internet porn and on and on. The statistics are staggering. Readers have emailed us that private nightclubs through London encounter the most extreme demands by Arabs asking for perverted sex and more alcohol and drugs than anyone can dream of consuming. The alcohol and drugs are tools for even more uninhibited sexual perversions.

Everything around them in society is interpreted by what they see as degrees of sexual teasing and arousal. Men or women can’t go to a shopping mall without worrying about sexual risks. Glances are highly sexual. Clothes are sexual. Standing too close to someone is sex. Talking to them is sex. Two people merely standing on the same side of a street is judged as sex. Sports is deemed too sexual for women to engage in. Bicycles, bananas and oblong objects have to be hidden and covered up. Bodies must be fully covered so no skin whatsoever can be seen – even on children. Clitorises must be cut and eliminated in fear of sex. Boy penises must be cut and undergo Khitan (circumcision) in fear of sex. Laws are made and punishments implemented in fear of sex. People must hide themselves from each other, even animal bottoms must be kept out of sight to not lit the raging fire throbbing under the Muslim Thoub. Music should be avoided so it doesn’t inflame their sexual urges; cinemas are a no-no. Even lifeless store manequins are a threat to their sex addiction and arose their passions.

Muslims are the most sex addicted people on earth. Their raging sex addiction is so extreme it is unfathomable to the rest of the world.

Nearly all of their brutal punishments are related to sex and accusations of teasing men into sex in some form or the other. The Muslim “paradise” is basically a whorehouse of Mohammed’s fantasies, full of group sex, orgies with young boys and women, and sessions that last more than “70 earth years” per round. Each and every Muslima in Jannah stand in waiting for some more marathon bedouine sex by her Lawrence of a Labia lasting an entire human lifetime.

The eternal Muslim Jannah is nothing else but a 24/7/365 porntube. Islam is a religion built on endless and uncontrolled porn addiction.

What a ridiculous and demented religion. There is so much porn on earth, what is the need to invade, slaughter and blow themselves up for it?

Saturday, September 13, 2014

“Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel,” Samuel Johnson said. A few centuries later his fellow Englishman, Winston Churchill, quipped, “The United States invariably does the right thing, after having exhausted every other alternative.”

It’s not true of the United States, but it is true of Barack Obama who, having exhausted every alternative that involved appeasement or pretending that ISIS wasn’t a threat, has decided to do the right thing.

As long as he gets enough applause for doing it.

With his approval ratings, particularly on American leadership and national security, lower than Assad’s, he decided to exploit September 11 to butch up his foreign policy image.

After spending the last few years ignoring ISIS, he delivered a carefully timed speech vowing to take it on. The speech might have been a little more credible if it had not come from the man whose inaction allowed ISIS to take over parts of Iraq and Syria and who early this year was dismissing it as a JV team.

The scoundrel who lied and claimed that he had defeated Al Qaeda has been reborn again as a patriot who is promising to… defeat Al Qaeda. Even his usual boast of defeating Al Qaeda has been carefully walked back to a claim of having defeated “much of al-Qaida’s leadership in Afghanistan and Pakistan”.

That brief moment of near honesty is diminished only by the fact that the war on Al Qaeda had moved on to the Middle East long before Obama even took office. It was Obama who decided to divert away from fighting Al Qaeda in the Middle East on a failed attempt to defeat the Taliban and an even more failed attempt to negotiate peace with the “moderate” Taliban.

Obama’s strategy is a kitchen sink approach that promises air strikes for the patriots and multilateral coalitions for the appeasers. There will be coalitions with Sunni Arabs and with a new “inclusive” Iraqi government. There will be coalitions with everyone. A UN session will be chaired. Syria will be bombed and “terrorists who threaten our country” will be hunted down.

And all of it will happen without a single American soldier being put at risk.

It’s an utterly incoherent and calculatedly unobjectionable speech by a failing politician that fails to address why we’re in this mess and what past policies we have to rethink to get out of it.

In a telling sign, Obama’s giant goodie bag of ISIS proposals also includes arming ISIS.

“Across the border in Syria, we have ramped up our military assistance to the Syrian opposition. Tonight, I again call on Congress, again, to give us additional authorities and resources to train and equip these fighters,” Obama said. “We must strengthen the opposition as the best counterweight to extremists like ISIL, while pursuing the political solution necessary to solve Syria’s crisis once and for all.”

It was the Syrian crisis that turned ISIS into an army. Some of the groups now loyal to ISIS once fought alongside the Syrian opposition that he would like to arm.

Some still do.

Not only does Obama know this, but he refrained from fully committing to arming the Syrian rebels precisely because there was no way to do so without risking the weapons falling into the hands of ISIS.

Hillary Clinton wrote in Hard Choices that he had refused to arm the rebels. Last year Defense Secretary Leon Panetta had testified that Obama had vetoed a proposal to provide weapons to them.

At a press conference Obama had said, “We have seen extremist elements insinuate themselves into the opposition, and you know, one of the things that we have to be on guard about — particularly when we start talking about arming opposition figures — is that we are not indirectly putting arms in the hands of folks that would do Americans harm.”

Reports in the New York Times suggested that the administration had not been able to find any “moderates” who could safely be armed with heavy weapons because the actual fighters on the ground are all Islamic Jihadists.

Now Obama is not only reversing one of the few sensible things he did and championing a policy that he knows quite well is wrong, but is also attempting to make Congress complicit in his destructive folly.

Obama was willing to give F-16 jets to the Muslim Brotherhood regime in Egypt. If he was holding off on heavy weapons transfers to the Jihadists in Syria, it was because he knew that there was a very high risk that those weapons would end up being used against Americans. And that he would pay a political price.

ISIS became much more lethal when it acquired American equipment that had been provided to the Iraqi military. ISIS allies in Syria had already been photographed with American humanitarian aid and when the Jihadists of the Islamic Front turned on the Free Syrian Army that is the typical vector for US aid, it easily seized their supplies and warehouses.

While the FSA isn’t ISIS, parts of it are aligned with ISIS and the other parts are jockeying for power.

Some Jihadist commanders with the FSA and other non-ISIS groups fight ISIS and its allies. Others are its allies. Telling them apart is hard even with a map and a room full of charts. Fighters drift back and forth. The “moderate” Syrian rebel that we arm and train today will be the “extreme” terrorist tomorrow and there is absolutely no way to tell where a weapon that we provide will end up.

Arming the Syrian opposition is the same thing as arming ISIS. The Syrian Jihadists fighting it don’t “reject its extreme ideology” as much as they’re angling for their piece of the Caliphate. The Al Nusra Front was fighting ISIS before it pledged allegiance to ISIS. The Sunni opposition consists of a lot of wannabe Caliphs trying to collect enough bakeries and oil wells to cash in for a Caliphate.

Obama insisted once again in his speech that ISIS is not Islamic. “No religion condones the killing of innocents… ISIL is a terrorist organization, pure and simple. And it has no vision other than the slaughter of all who stand in its way.”

The vision of Islam, past and present, has been the slaughter of all who stand in the way of the religion’s supremacy. But the attempt to portray ISIS as a unique entity that is detached from all other Islamic terrorist groups is a misleading effort to justify an incoherent policy.

“These terrorists are unique in their brutality,” Obama claimed. “They execute captured prisoners. They kill children. They enslave, rape and force women into marriage. They threatened a religious minority with genocide.”

There isn’t anything unique about these things. Wahhabi Jihadists have been doing all of them for centuries. And these tactics date back to Mohammed.

ISIS isn’t unique in its brutality. It’s unique in its successes. And its successes can be credited to Obama’s Arab Spring and his refusal to admit that his policy of ignoring Iraq had failed.

“America is safer,” Obama claims. But that’s a lie.

America is less safe than ever. Not just because of ISIS, but because of a leadership that allows such crises to become severe threats because it refuses to address what they really are.

Obama’s speech promises action against ISIS while denying what it is. If Obama follows through on his policy, instead of defeating ISIS, he will arm it. It’s an old mistake being repeated all over again.